When will Texas become a swing state?

[pbrower2a]

Not for a LONG time.  The State is big enough and Republican enough to where the Democrats need to roughly triple the Hispanic population to have Obama win it with 2008 Percentages.

Hispanics made up about 25% of Texas’ electorate, and voted for Obama 63-37.  Which means out of the roughly 8 Million Texas Voters in 2008, 2 Million were Hispanic, 1.26 Million voted for Obama, and .74 Million voted for McCain, giving Obama roughly 520,000 Vote edge from them.  McCain won the state by 940,000 Votes.

According to Chuck Todd’s and Sheldon Gawiser’s How Barack Obama Won: A State-by-State Guide to the Historical 2008 Presidential Election, Hispanics were 20% of the Texas vote. Yes, they voted 63% for Obama, but he won them by 28, not 26, points. Their turnout was the same, percentage wise, as in 2004. For Whites, 63% of them cast votes, and gave Obama 26%. In 2004, Whites in Texas were 66%, and they gave John Kerry 25%. That was just a 2% Democratic shift, but Whites were a 3% decline in the vote. Texas Blacks were 13% in 2008, and cast 98% for Obama, a 96-point margin. In 2004, Texas Blacks were 12%, and gave Kerry 83% of their vote with a 66-point margin over native son Bush.

In 2004, George W. Bush won males by 20% (60% to John Kerry’s 40%). 2008 John McCain — who carried Texas by a raw vote count of 950,695 — won them also by 20% (59% to Barack Obama’s 39%). The male vote rose by two percent, 47% in 2008. In 2004, Bush won females by 26% (63% to Kerry’s 37%). In 2008, McCain won the female vote by just 5% (52% to Obama’s 47%) — a 21-point decline in a state that, percentage wise, shifted 11.11%. The 2008 female vote turnout was a two-percent decline, 53%.


Race Breakdown Info (for 2008 Obama)
• Whites 63 x .26 = 16.38%
• Hispanics 20 x .63 = 12.60%
• Blacks 13 x .98 = 12.74%

16.38% + 12.60% + 12.74% = 41.72%

(Election 2008 Result in Texas, for Obama: 43.63% to McCain’s 55.39%.)



Hypothetical Flip Scenarios (for 2012 Obama)

Scenario A
• Whites 62 x .30 = 18.60%
• Hispanics 23 x .74 = 17.02%
• Blacks 14 x .98 = 13.72%

(Result: 18.60% + 17.02% + 13.72% = 49.34%.)

Scenario B
• Whites 61 x .29 = 17.69%
• Hispanics 24 x .75 = 18.00%
• Blacks 14 x .98 = 14.70%

(Result: 17.69% + 18.00% + 13.72% = 49.41%.)

Scenario C
• Whites 60 x .28 = 16.80%
• Hispanics 25 x .76 = 19.00%
• Blacks 14 x .98 = 13.72%

(Result: 16.80% + 19.00% + 13.72% = 49.52%.)

Scenario D
• Whites 59 x .27 = 15.93%
• Hispanics 25 x .77 = 19.25%
• Blacks 15 x .98 = 14.70%

(Result: 15.93% + 19.25% + 14.70% = 49.88%.)

Scenario E
• Whites 58 x .26 = 15.08%
• Hispanics 25 x .77 = 19.25%
• Blacks 16 x .98 = 15.68%

(Result: 15.08% + 19.25% + 15.68% = 50.01%.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(Reminder: Combined Texas 2008 vote for John McCain [55.39%] and Barack Obama [43.63%] was 99.02%.)

Additional Hispanic vote of, say, your initially stated 25 percent, would have put the state of Texas in play with in Election 2008 if that would have combined with a significant, say, 10-point Democratic shift of the White vote (compared to 2004).

What would have worked (for 2008 Obama) 

• Whites [62] x [.35] = 21.70%
• Hispanics [25] x .63 = 16.25%
• Blacks [12] x .98 = 11.76%

(Result: 21.70% + 16.25% + 11.76% = 49.71%. This means that Obama would have flipped/carried Texas, over McCain’s 49.31%.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There’s a problem: This all doesn’t just rest on the shoulders of Hispanic voters and Blacks. Again, look at the demographics that are changing, nationally and with Texas, and look at the breakdown on the vote from Election 2008. You are attempting to paint a picture about Hispanics’ and Democrats’ limits, specifically with Texas, but I can paint one too as to why you’re wrong. Also, you haven’t written about the ground that’s been lost with the Republican Party — and with White voters, which also entails a breakdown with the age groups.

2004 Texas (Bush 61.09% • Kerry 38.22%; R+22.86%)
• 18–29 (20): Bush 59% • Kerry  41% [R+18%]
• 30–44 (29): Bush 68% • Kerry 31% [R+37%]
• 45–64 (40): Bush 62% • Kerry 37% [R+25%]
• 65+ (11): Bush 52% • Kerry 48% [R+4%]

2008 Texas (McCain 55.39% •Obama 43.63%; R+11.76%; Shift D+11.76%)
• 18–29 (16): McCain 45% • Obama 54% [D+9%; Shift D+27%]
• 30–44 (31): McCain 52% • Obama 46% [R+8%; Shift D+29%]
• 45–64 (39): McCain 58% • Obama 41% [R+17%; Shift D+8%]
• 65+ (14): McCain 66% • Obama 32% [R+34%; Shift R+30%]


In essence, this tells us that oldest age-voting group, 65 and over, had the biggest increased turnout (from 2004) and assured that John McCain would keep Texas in double-digit margins. But the next-to-youngest nearly flipped parties, and they were two-fifths the statewide vote.

Considering that native son Bush, in his re-election, performed poorly with over-65s, what if their vote would’ve been the same for McCain?

Single-digit margins (held for 2008 McCain) 

• 18–29 (16): McCain 45% • Obama 54% [D+9%; Shift D+27%]
• 30–44 (31): McCain 52% • Obama 46% [R+8%; Shift D+29%]
• 45–64 (39): McCain 58% • Obama 41% [R+17%; Shift D+8%]
• 65+ (14): McCain 52% • Obama 48% [R+4%; Shift 0%]

18–29: 16 x .45 = 7.20%
30–44: 31 x .52 = 16.12%
45–64: 39 x .58 = 22.62%
65+: 14 x .52 =  7.28%

7.20% + 16.12% + 22.62% + 7.28% = 53.22%

(Result: McCain would have carried Texas over Obama’s 45.80%, by 7.42%.)


Now let’s use the above, with the 2004 Texas turnout:

• 18–29 (20): McCain 45% • Obama 54% [D+9%; Shift D+27%]
• 30–44 (29): McCain 52% • Obama 46% [R+8%; Shift D+29%]
• 45–64 (40): McCain 58% • Obama 41% [R+17%; Shift D+8%]
• 65+ (11): McCain 52% • Obama 48% [R+4%; Shift 0%]

18–29: 20 x .45 = 9.00%
30–44: 29 x .52 = 15.08%
45–64: 40 x .58 = 23.20%
65+: 11 x .52 =  5.72%

9.00% + 15.08% + 23.20% + 5.72% = 53.00%

(Result: McCain would have carried Texas over Obama’s 46.02%, by 6.98%.)



Now, Texas shifted harder in 2008 than then national average (by 1.38%). It is nowadays guaranteed to carry for a prevailing Republican presidential candidate — it has to. But If Obama wins re-election, in 2012, with less than 55% of the U.S. Popular Vote, it is apparent Texas won’t arbitrarily get flipped into his column. But if he gets 58% or 59% — rather than 56% or 57% tops — in the U.S. Popular Vote, well the state of Texas would indeed end up in play.

If there is to be any mass swing of white votes in Texas, then it will be in suburban counties surrounding Dallas and Houston. That includes about half of Tarrant County (Fort Worth) which is itself about half suburban. President Obama can completely forget  Amarillo, Lubbock, Midland, Odessa, and Wichita Falls, all large cities.

I was looking at the county-wide vote in Texas. Obama won Dallas (Dallas), Travis (Austin), Bexar (San Antonio), Harris (Houston), Jefferson (Beaumont), and El Paso (El Paso) Counties, and everything along the Mexican Border from about Eagle Pass. He lost Tarrant County (Fort Worth), but the county is heavily suburban (containing Arlington, one of the largest suburbs in America not in New York or California). He barely lost San Patricio County (Corpus Christi), which really is a large city, 

What Obama did not win in Texas that he won in most other states with giant cities is... suburban Texas. Aside from coming close to winning Fort Bend (near Houston) and Hays (near Austin) he lost the suburban rings of counties around Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio. He was just simply clobbered in Denton, Collin, Rockwall,  and Ellis Counties near Dallas, Comal (near San Antonio), and Galveston (which is about half-suburban and half "Greater Galveston"). Some of those counties went about 75-25 for McCain. In the states that Obama won, with the arguable exception of Wisconsin, Obama did well in the suburbs.

If Obama had done as well in suburbs around Dallas and Houston as he did around, for example, Philadelphia or even St. Louis, then he would have won Texas. Of course Barack Obama did practically no campaigning in Texas after the primary campaign, so he never gave his pitch to suburbanites in Texas.

Obama did execrably in the northwestern third of the state, even losing Amarillo, Lubbock, and Wichita Falls (all cities over 100,000 people) and of course Midland and Odessa by huge margins.  Politically the area is much like western Nebraska even where it is urban.

Is Texas racist? Not especially. Much less than Mississippi or Alabama. Texas is one of few states with large Hispanic and African-American populations by proportion. Obama did campaign in the suburbs, much as he had to in Illinois, in those states tin which he did campaign.

This can be said: should Texas suburbanites vote in 2012 as did suburbanites in Ohio or Virginia did in 2008, then Obama wins Texas. Of course, President Obama will need to do well in suburban America outside Texas to win re-election. Core cities just aren't enough anymore. It is hard to see how Texas suburbanites are in any lesser economic stress than suburbanites in California or Pennsylvania. But without a mass shift of white suburban voters in the state, Obama still loses the state by about an 8% margin.

 

[pbrower2a]

If there is to be any mass swing of white votes in Texas, then it will be in suburban counties surrounding Dallas and Houston. That includes about half of Tarrant County (Fort Worth) which is itself about half suburban. President Obama can completely forget  Amarillo, Lubbock, Midland, Odessa, and Wichita Falls, all large cities.

I was looking at the county-wide vote in Texas. Obama won Dallas (Dallas), Travis (Austin), Bexar (San Antonio), Harris (Houston), Jefferson (Beaumont), and El Paso (El Paso) Counties, and everything along the Mexican Border from about Eagle Pass. He lost Tarrant County (Fort Worth), but the county is heavily suburban (containing Arlington, one of the largest suburbs in America not in New York or California). He barely lost San Patricio County (Corpus Christi), which really is a large city,  

What Obama did not win in Texas that he won in most other states with giant cities is... suburban Texas. Aside from coming close to winning Fort Bend (near Houston) and Hays (near Austin) he lost the suburban rings of counties around Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio. He was just simply clobbered in Denton, Collin, Rockwall,  and Ellis Counties near Dallas, Comal (near San Antonio), and Galveston (which is about half-suburban and half "Greater Galveston"). Some of those counties went about 75-25 for McCain. In the states that Obama won, with the arguable exception of Wisconsin, Obama did well in the suburbs.

If Obama had done as well in suburbs around Dallas and Houston as he did around, for example, Philadelphia or even St. Louis, then he would have won Texas. Of course Barack Obama did practically no campaigning in Texas after the primary campaign, so he never gave his pitch to suburbanites in Texas.

Obama did execrably in the northwestern third of the state, even losing Amarillo, Lubbock, and Wichita Falls (all cities over 100,000 people) and of course Midland and Odessa by huge margins.  Politically the area is much like western Nebraska even where it is urban.

Is Texas racist? Not especially. Much less than Mississippi or Alabama. Texas is one of few states with large Hispanic and African-American populations by proportion. Obama did campaign in the suburbs, much as he had to in Illinois, in those states tin which he did campaign.

This can be said: should Texas suburbanites vote in 2012 as did suburbanites in Ohio or Virginia did in 2008, then Obama wins Texas. Of course, President Obama will need to do well in suburban America outside Texas to win re-election. Core cities just aren't enough anymore. It is hard to see how Texas suburbanites are in any lesser economic stress than suburbanites in California or Pennsylvania. But without a mass shift of white suburban voters in the state, Obama still loses the state by about an 8% margin.

 

I don't see Obama winning the suburbs in Texas in 2012. The Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth suburbs, as you noted, went strongly for McCain.  And counties like Montgomery (Houston suburbs) are very white, middle to upper class, and conservative in economic and social issues. The voters in places like Tarrant are angry at what they see as an overly liberal agenda.

One thing to note is that suburbs in the South (if you consider Texas especially Southern) are the historic bastions of Southern Republicanism.  These areas can be quite reactionary, for lack of a better term, and they are resistant to strong change that they perceive to be threatening. A lot of these areas also aren't urbanized culturally or economically like many Northern suburbs are.

If we look at Obama's strongest showings in suburban Texas, places like Tarrant County are on the list. Obama got just under 44 percent of the vote here-not bad for a conservative Southern suburban county, but still not close to winning. Kerry and Gore both got about 37 percent here.

I suspect that the GOP is wise enough in 2012 to run a ticket that doesn't alienate suburban voters like McCain/Palin did in 2008. If we consider 2008 to be an especially bad year for the GOP in suburbs, then 44 percent is probably close to the best that a Democrat can do in the Texas suburbs until major demographic changes occur in the Texas suburban electorate.

I just don't see him campaigning in Texas in 2012. If the state is close then the 35 or so electoral votes mean the difference between about 400 and about 435 electoral votes,  implying the complete lack of need to do much campaigning anywhere. The only way in which Obama campaigns in Texas (unless for some embattled Democrat) is in desperation , when Texas is the difference between 230 and 275 electoral votes because he has mucked up badly as President -- much as John McCain made his quixotic last-minute campaigns in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

It is more likely that Obama wins back the poor-white"Clinton-but-not-Obama" voters who made the difference between Clinton wins in 1992 and 1996 and an Obama loss in 2008 in five states (AR, KY, LA, TN, WV) than that he wins Texas -- and I think that the New Orleans-to-Wheeling arc is gone for the Democrats.